German election diary

Angela Merkel's bittersweet triumph

ANGELA MERKEL, chancellor of Germany for eight years, seems likely to stay in office for a few more. She has won for her party, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), a sparkling election result, with about 42% of the vote when including its Bavarian sister party, the CSU, according to exit polls and estimates. Depending on how the smaller parties fare, that may even suffice for an absolute majority of seats in parliament, allowing Mrs Merkel to govern without a coalition partner as only Konrad Adenauer, also of the CDU, did in the 1950s.

But as of the evening of this election day, September 22nd, other outcomes were still possible. For one, voters delivered a stinging rebuke to Mrs Merkel's current coalition partner, the liberal Free Democrats (FDP). Having been thrown out of the Bavarian state parliament a week ago, and the state parliament of Hesse today, the FDP seemed likely to be ejected from the federal parliament as well. Its leadership will have to go, its message will have to be renewed, if it is to have any future in German politics.

The Social Democrats (SPD) improved slightly to about 25.6%, which was still a bad result.

The Greens, also of the centre-left, suffered a bitter defeat relative to their expectations, at an estimated 8% or so. Like the Free Democrats, the Greens will be doing a lot of thinking in the coming days about their leadership and their messages.

The Pirates, fashionable a couple of years ago but without content beyond geeky internet issues, are gone for all intents and purposes.

The upshot: the current government of the CDU and FDP is out. The current chancellor, Angela Merkel, is likely to stay in. She will try to form a coalition with the SPD in the coming week to get a majority of seats if she needs one (as she certainly will, for mathematical reasons, if the Alternative for Germany does get in). In fact, she will try even if the CDU-CSU eke out a technical majority of seats by themselves, because she knows she needs a large majority to steer Germany through the rest of the euro crisis and to keep the government stable for a full term.

The greatest suspense in the coming days—once you look past all the other theatrics of the parties—is about what the SPD will do. Will its moderates, including people like Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the parliamentary leader, prevail and push the Social Democrats into a responsible and patriotic partnership with Mrs Merkel as they had in 2005-09? Or will the left wingers win, with a nod to the Greens and that newly confident former pariah, The Left, for an alternative government? By the end of the week, we should know more.

According to one previous commenter, "a German policy analyst, U.S." wrote about Merkel: "... she is everything to everybody: a bit conservative, a bit liberal, a bit green, and a bit social-democratic. The secret is that she is not governing and not leading. Germany is governing itself."

Of course, a chancellor in postwar Germany can neither "govern" nor "lead" in the sense the presidential systems in France or the USA allow this, where the executive branch is led by one person with enormous powers, who serves as both head of state and head of government. Whereas Germany is a federal parliamentary republic by constitution, where public will and federal legislative power is vested in the Bundestag and the Bundesrat (the representative body of the Laender, Germany's regional states).

It seems somehow characteristic for many "political analysts" these days not to know the constitutional basics of the countries they write about. As a matter of fact, this policy analyst mentioned above describes an almost 'ideal' administering democratic consensus system . . . quite the opposite of some authoritarian leadership systems we allegedly all hold in contempt so much.

This is also why the German postwar constitution determines that the Federal Chancellor 'administers public will', not "lead the nation", especially not in a direction the majority doesn't want.

This public will was expressed Sep 22. The results clearly show that a majority doesn't want more powers handed to EU bodies resp. 'joint liabilities' on Euro level. If Ms Merkel would dare to ignore this public will she'd be stopped in her tracks in no time at all by the federal political system.

On the other hand, a majority seems to be wanting more "social justice" at home; this means for any future administration to act more in Germany's own interest.

This is probably why the nation voted for a "grand coalition" and, at the same time, gave euro-skeptical parties like CSU and AfD lots of support.

The FDP, once the guardian of national (and individual) freedom, was too eager handing the nation's freedom to Frankfurt and Brussels. That way the Liberal party steered itself 'obsolete' in the eyes of many of its former voters (lawyers, doctors, freelance professionals). This normally 'loyal' FDP-clientele changed massively sides to AfD, as post-election polls now show.

Resumee: The FDP missed its own euro-critical school of thought - its natural habitat and 'onetime' opportunity. . . . And got its comeuppance!

Therefore, whoever will put the new administration together in Germany, to me it seems the Germans have had enough from "fuehrers" to all eternity; they prefer level-headed, mathematical-minded administrators; and that's a good thing, too.

"Nie wieder soll von deutschem Boden Krieg ausgehen!" It was not only a war objective of the Western allies, this ethic principle was also enshrined in the February 1949 constitution of the federal republic. In the course of time this postulate become an intrinsic part of Germany's modern-time identity.

Decades before the Holocaust the Zionist movement's central aims were the creation of a Jewish National Home and cultural center on Palestine territory.

Jewish immigration to Palestine was facilitated immediately after WW I based on the 1917 Balfour agreement. In the early period of the "Jewish homeland", from the mid-1920s on, most Jewish immigrants came from Russia and the Ukraine where they fled Stalin's communism.

However, the native Arab Palestinians were never asked if they agreed to the Balfour Declaration. After centuries of foreign Turkish rule, they detested to be ruled again by foreigners, and they were convinced that the British occupiers favored the Jewish immigrants from outside Palestine – the Zionists – at their expense.

They disliked the British-Jewish Balfour Declaration and its reference to the native Arab population as "existing non-Jewish communities." And they also disliked being referred to in the League of Nation's Mandate Agreement as "the other sections."

The native Palestinians began to attack the Jewish new arrivals. In response Jewish immigrants in Jerusalem organized a self-defense league. It came to more clashes. In response the British mandate authority forbade the carrying of arms and imprisoned the Jewish group's leader.

As a result Jews set up a clandestine organization for defense, the so-called Haganah. The Arab Palestinians also organized defense units in order to stop the massive Jewish immigration into what the Arab Palestinians considered their homeland. All this, the Jewish mass immigration and the Arab Palestinian resistance, took place from 1921 onward, way before the holocaust happened.

After WW II, the Zionist movement focused on the creation of a "Jewish state". For most immigrants this meant ethnic cleansing of the native population. This ethnic cleansing process is ongoing, directed against the native Palestinian population. This is the true reason for the conflict in Israel-Palestine TODAY . . . and certainly not the holocaust three generations ago (to whatever extent this horrible experience might still influence the soul of the Israelis today.

However, all German postwar governments stood loyal at Israel's side. They help with material goods (recently donated submarines come to mind) wherever they can.

But I do not think that German troops will ever involve in military conflicts again, neither for nor against Israel. This was, last but not least, one of the Western Allies' declared war objectives.

Some commenters earlier accused the German political landscape -with good reason- of being 'dull'.

However, if you're right then future federal election campaigns will - most likely - be way more interesting, since the FDP must try to regain its former support base that went in droves to the newly founded AfD.

According to Forschungsgruppe Wahlen: At least "450.000 voters switched from FDP to AFD". Talking to some of the FDP's former clientele, it's most likely many more.

The leaders of the FDP surrendered their very own 'natural habitat' to the newcomers from AfD, without even trying to put up a fight . . . And they paid a heavy price for their 'CDU-streamlined' attitude.

Fact is, the FDP's intrinsic constituency has a natural love for individual freedom. Therefore, to protect individuals' freedom from unwarranted infringement by governments and supranational organizations used to be the FDP's very own school of thought. Being opposed to surrendering basic civil and political rights to the unelected 'gubernators of power' in Brussels and Frankfurt should come naturally to a party that once claimed to be the guardian of individual freedom.

By "not doing their job", the German Liberals proved to their former electorate that they have become obsolete. This is why they quite rightly received their comeuppance!

In future the FDP will have to regain the lost votes from the AfD in the German political landscape . . . or the AfD will establish itself as the new "freedom-seeking alternative" to the "has-become-obsolete" FDP.

Nobody here can explain why Germany should change a single thing when everything is exactly going according to plan.

Had the crisis in Southern Europe had any effect on the German economy ? NO ! Despite 4 years of constant blabbering by all sorts of People and including the economist, Germany is doing great, the breakdown of the Southern European market has been compensated without any problem at all by simply shifting away to other markets.

On Top, the crisis in Southern Europe keeps the Euro down and drives the capital to Germany, thus fuelling 1) exports
2) keep the borrowing costs for the German state low, beeing great for deficit reduction and the target of producing a real budget surplus next year
3) strenghens Germany's political power and enables Germany to enforce its policy beyond economic terms

The downside of German savers recieving less interest may even drive some more into the stockmarket, which is a field in which Germans are underrespresented in any measurement.

Finally, after years and years of reform, the first signs of improovement may start to show in Southern Europe, but until then it is in the best self-interest of Merkel and Germany to keep everything as it is. If Southern Europe want's stimulus, just tell them to go to the financial markets and borrow there for terribly high interest rates or do as told by Germany in exchange for loans.

Is this position selfish ? Not more than asking for even more money from Germany after lying in the face of Germans for over a decade if you ask me.

There are very few leaders in the world who possess strong science backgrounds. As a quantum physicist, Merkel stands out in a unique way among world leaders.

She is pragmatic, makes decision based on solid evidence, eschews unnecessary risk-taking. And once she knows she is on the right track, she would commit herself to and pursue the objective relentlessly. Lets see if she can revive EU by 2017. (boontee, btt1943)

Adenauer, more or less, followed the directives of the Western powers. His "connecting Germany to the West" (meaning, joining NATO and the coal and steel union) wasn't necessarily in the interest of a "united Germany". Adenauer missed the chance Austria took in 1955, when the Austrian government accepted a farsighted agree­ment with Khrushchev: In May 1955, on Soviet and Austrian insistence, a state treaty was signed in Vienna that the troops of the four occupying powers, which were - similar to the situation in Germany - controlling the country since the end of the war, were to be withdrawn in return for an Austria's commitment to neu­trality. This was the reason Austria was fortunate to become united again and remain neutral throughout the Cold War.

3 years earlier, in 1952, a similar offer was made by the Soviet Union to the Adenauer government. The so-called 'Stalin Note', also known as the March Note, was a document delivered on March 10, 1952, from the Soviet occupation zone to the representatives of the Western allied powers (UK, France, and the United States) in Germany. The Soviet leadership put forth a proposal for a reunification and neutralization of Germany, with no conditions on economic policies and with guarantees for "the rights of man and basic freedoms, including freedom of speech, press, religious persuasion, political conviction, and assembly" and free activity of democratic parties and organizations (Wikipedia).

Adenauer didn't even allow that his countrymen were publicly asked if they're for it or against it, instead he cringingly followed the orders of the Western powers, which was an ungracious 'NO'.

The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), one of the EU-forerunners, was proposed by the French government on 9 May 1950 in order to tame and control a future industrial power of France's main economic rival: Germany.

French foreign minister Robert Schuman declared his government's aim was to "make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible". The Treaty, so the French calculus, would create a common market for coal and steel among its member states which then would serve to neutralize Germany's industrial preeminence, particularly of the Ruhr. Also at this Adenauer was rather "a compliant pupil" than "a leader".

Willy Brand was more of a "leader" by helping to emancipate Germany from the Allied dictates, which has been "the order of political business" for all German governments till then.

As a former Wehrmacht officer Helmut Schmidt was by nature a crisis-solver and "commander", these were his trained strengths, but Schmidt wasn't a "leader" in a political sense.

Kohl, admittedly, grasped an opportunity by the forelock, but also he rather followed the historical events than initiating them.

The only "leader" who lead the nation into a new direction, without being pushed by events or public will, was Gerhard Schroeder. But he paid dearly for his political courage.

I wouldn´t paint the situation as black as you do. The Energiewende may be slow, but the goal is achievable. Energy-prices for fossil ressources in the longterm will increase, so that an economy based on renewables will pay off in the future. At the same time Germany´s engeneering sector will benefit. And what is an interesting fact is, that Germany even with large parts of its nuclear plants shut down still exports energy to France for example. And another interesting fact: In June renewables produced up to 60% of Germany´s energy-consumption allready. This was an optimum under special circumstances but it shows, that the Energiewende is possible.

And as Russian influence is concerned, I can´t see how Germany should be prone to Russian black-mail. Germany indeed is one of Gazproms largest customers, but 60 % of Russia´s gas exports go to the EU. Germany is the spider in the pipeline-web of distributing Russian gas. If Russia wanted to cut of Germany from supplies the would jeopardise all their European customers, which would endanger Russia more than Germany. Located in the heart of Europe Germany has easy access to Northsea-gas from all producing countries and Europe´s main harbour for Gas-imports Rotterdam. Beyond that infact Germans and all the other European customers would gladly get rid of their Russian contracts, as the prices for Russian gas are fixed and haven´t fallen according to world market prices. Fracking made gas much cheaper no matter where it is produced. So if Russia cut supplies it would risk all it´s customers immediately and thereby all it´s remaining leverage in the world. Tables have turned in the gas market. It has simply become a customer dominated market.

And the Euro-crisis? Yes, the story isn´t over, because we keep it boiling. The ongoing crisis inflicts the pain, that either will facilitate reforms in the south, which will lead to a recovery, or the defiant forces amongst southern-european electorates will force their governments to leave the currency-union. Germany will benefit in either way.

If the German electorate wanted to give Merkel that absolute power you claim she and her party deserves, then the German voters would have given her an absolute majority of the votes. The German electorate certainly didn't want a remake of the previous coalition. That's why her 'campaigned' coalition partner was punished at the polls. Now she has to submit to the voters' will, find another coalition partner, form a new coalition and make "policy concessions". This is lived democracy to a tee. The will of the electorate suggests the SPD as her first choice.

And this makes sense too: In the eyes of many voters in Germany the country needs a fairer distribution of her commonly acquired productivity gains. I'm able to relate to that - in spite of my conservative basic attitude - in view of the fact that when it comes to household wealth Germany lags behind its Eurozone partners with some studies even suggesting that median household wealth in places like Spain, Greece or Cyprus is far, far greater than that of Germany (contrary to previous assumptions).

And when the dust has settled over Germany, Angie will realize that this will be her hardest term ever. Her 'all tactics but no strategy' approach has built up such a large backlog of unsolved issues that a cataclysm is more likely than anything else.

Those who thought they elected 'stability' will reap chaos, since hands in the pocket never solves anything in the long run.